Yesterday, we were treated to another preliminary injunction on a product due to patent trolling. Over the past few years, some companies have resorted to patent trolling instead of competing on merit, using frivolous and obvious software and design patents to block competitors - even though this obviously shouldn't be legal. The fact that this is, in fact, legal, is baffling, and up until a few months ago, a regular topic here on OSNews. At some point - I stopped reporting on the matter. The reason for this is simple: I realised that intellectual property law exists outside of regular democratic processes and is, in fact, wholly and utterly totalitarian. What's the point in reporting on something we can't change via legal means?

My opinion is that apple are behaving as patent trolls since it's clear that a key part of their strategy is resorting to litigation to harass competitors instead of just offering the best product value for customers on the market.

It's a shame because I think apple can do pretty well on merit alone, why are they tarnishing their image with patent trolling tactics? I really have to wonder if they internally believe their value proposition is getting worse in the face of new competitive threats.

A patent troll is one who protected their patent with no intention of implementing it... Apple clearly doesn't meet that.

I am not saying I agree with Apple, or with Samsung. Personally I think Samsung never have slavishly copied the iPhone to begin with. On the other side I'd say that Apple seems to be grasping at straws with a number of their lawsuits.

The whole patent system needs a massive overhaul. Apple should never have been granted many of the patents they hold. However, it is hard to fault them for playing by the rules they have been given. Samsung could have (probably) easily avoided the lawsuits as well.

Out of all of it, I just object to Apple being called a Patent Troll since they don't meet the definition of it. At the very least, they are trying (rightly or wrongly) to protect things that they have actually implemented.

My opinion is that apple are behaving as patent trolls since it's clear that a key part of their strategy is resorting to litigation to harass competitors instead of just offering the best product value for customers on the market.

Sure, they are abusing the patent system but that's not the same as being a patent troll. A patent troll has no products, only (questionable) patents.
Apple, for all their faults and bad behavior, do create real products.

Words are important, they convey meaning. Apple is not a patent troll. You may disagree with them, but trying to use the wrong term, or the right term in the wrong way, just weakens your argument.

Please define what you *think* patent troll means, then go look up the actual meaning of it, and then find out what the proper term you should be using.

How about Apple is an abuser of trivial and obvious software patents such as slide to unlock and multisource search. So Apple is a patent abuser not a patent troll. They also qualify for the term hypocrite.

" We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas" - Steve Jobs